Greedy or smart business? You be the judge

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
As a musician myself, if I had the money to pay the NFL to have an opportunity to perform at the halftime show... damn straight I'd pay them. haha! Amazing way to promote yourself.

With that said, I think less-known singers/bands would be more likely to do this. I'm not so sure the biggest stars, such as Katy Perry or Rihanna, would pay them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Rammer
Nobody worth a crap would pay for that. That's a lot of time and work to prepare for that. It's pretty absurd...

Greedy/Arrogant
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhinobean
The Rammer said:
It's very smart business It's basically free advertising on televisions biggest stage for the artists in which they reap the reward of being thrust into the limelight for free. Charge em
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Greed's an easy word to throw around. Funny how it's always referring to someone else's money (and risk, which rarely gets mentioned).

We're either a capitalistic country or we're not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Rammer
LOL.
The arrogance.
I'm sure Bruno Mars. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Springsteen ect can't sell tickets without the help of some half time show that usually has the authenticity of a Jr High mock rock competition.
To ask bands to contribute a percent of post Super Bowl ticket sales.... literally made me laugh out loud.
If I was a rep for a band or in a band being considered ol Roger would receive a short answer....two words....seven letters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhinobean
The word greed is an emotionally charged term that expresses the unilateral decision that someone else wants more than you so they must be somehow wrong , a man who makes $100,000/year is considered greedy by the guy who makes 20K,it's so relative,IMO it's good business,the performers get an enormous amount of pre game publicity from it, it's not like it's a transaction where they don't benefit ,or they are a charity, they too are business people.
It's a simple business decision where someone has been giving something away for a long time and probably someone offered to pay for it,and the league said "well if they will pay for it ,aren't we sort of foolish to keep giving it away", if they CAN sell it , they'd be stupid not to.
If all the suits that are being brought against this league go against them ,they are going to need as much money as they can get their hands on,future is always uncertain ,therefore prudent operators need to acquire excess wherever possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigRamFan
The owners are going to use this new income to lower in-stadium hot dog and beer prices, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhinobean
I find the whole half time show thing odd anyway. It's a sport first and foremost. Every other game in the season, the players get 12 mins (I think) for half time but at the Super Bowl they have to wait around for ages, cooling down while a bunch of people are dancing around to some artist they're pretending to like.

Now, put someone good like AC/DC on and I might have less of a problem with it
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigRamFan and rhinobean
Let them pay for the privilege of performing at half time - THEN - lets see the NFL donate that money to a charity / fund for injured sportsmen from all levels of play - high school through to the pros...
 
We can only hope that UP With People doesn't have a lot of cash and make a comeback!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 551staaa
I got no problem with it. Commercials are so expensive because there are so many eyeballs on the game. Same concept with the halftime entertainment. The exposure means future $$$.
 
Prime Time said:
Roger Goodell strikes again.
---------------------------
NFL wants Super Bowl halftime performers to pay for the privilege
Posted by Mike Florio on August 19, 2014

121017095532_cash-getty-images.jpg
Getty Images

As it has grown and grown and grown some more, the NFL has continued to find more and more and more revenue streams.

The latest could be the Super Bowl halftime show. Currently a gig the performer plays for free in order to turn a gigantic international platform into the high profile and profits that go with it, the league now wants a cut.

According to the Wall Street Journal (via SportsBusiness Daily), the NFL has asked the three artists under consideration for the Super Bowl XLIX halftime show to “contribute a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour income” to the NFL, or to “make some other type of financial contribution.” Per the report, the idea received a “chilly reception” from the representatives of Katy Perry, Rihanna, and Coldplay.

Regardless, it only takes one performer to bite the hook in order for the NFL to parlay the halftime show into even more of a moneymaker. And it’s entirely possible that the league leaked the development in order to pressure one of the three to blink, given that plenty of other performers who would gladly give up a piece of a pie they otherwise don’t have will now be calling the league to offer whatever the league wants for the privilege of playing to one of the biggest audiences in TV history.
Click to expand...

Greedy bastards.
 
LumberTubs said:
I find the whole half time show thing odd anyway. It's a sport first and foremost. Every other game in the season, the players get 12 mins (I think) for half time but at the Super Bowl they have to wait around for ages, cooling down while a bunch of people are dancing around to some artist they're pretending to like.

Now, put someone good like AC/DC on and I might have less of a problem with it
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more @LumberTubs . The teams play 18 games with a 12 minute half only to be jerked around for a 30 "show" in the middle of the biggest game of their lives.
 
VegasRam said:
Exactly.

Greed's an easy word to throw around. Funny how it's always referring to someone else's money (and risk, which rarely gets mentioned).

We're either a capitalistic country or we're not.
Click to expand...

I don't think we've been a true capitalist country for some time. Many of the people who campaign for true capitalism would be shocked at their situation after that light switch flipped.

I don't think it's greedy just to be greedy, but it may turn out to be bad business. If the artists don't pay. And it depends on public perception, or whether anyone from the public will care. People turn a blind eye to a lot that's NFL related (cough, L. Little, cough).
 
I don't know about you guys, but for me, half time show is for getting more food and talking with friends. I don't give two shits about Beyoncé over singing another verse. I hate the choice of music. Bring on The Outfield, some Eddie Money or make my day with some Def Leppard.
 
I couldn't care less about this, but, I always thought Performers got paid to perform. I didn't ever think one day they would have to pay for the pleasure!! Personally I use 'Half-time to Go to the bath-room, have a cig, and grab a bite to eat. Then I'm ready for the rest of the game!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oldgeek
They should pay us to watch the crap halftime shows that have, unfortunately, become the standard for the Super Bowl.

Crud, do I have to pay the NFL now because I used the term "Super Bowl"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back